Colon Cancer, Version 3.2024, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most frequently diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Management of disseminated metastatic CRC involves various active drugs, either in combination or as single agents. The choice of therapy is based on consideration of the goals of therapy, the type and timing of prior therapy, the mutational profile of the tumor, and the differing toxicity profiles of the constituent drugs. This manuscript summarizes the data supporting the systemic therapy options recommended for metastatic CRC in the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer.

STELLAR-303: randomized phase III study of zanzalintinib + atezolizumab in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer.

Most patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) have limited treatment options following standard-of-care therapy. VEGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have demonstrated clinical activity in mCRC in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), particularly in patients without liver metastases. The TKI zanzalintinib (XL092) targets VEGFR, MET and TAM kinases, proteins that are involved in tumor growth, angiogenesis, metastasis and immunosuppression. Zanzalintinib has immunomodulatory properties that may enhance response to ICIs. Presented is the design of STELLAR-303, a global, phase III, open-label, randomized study evaluating zanzalintinib plus atezolizumab versus regorafenib in patients with non-MSI-H mCRC who progressed during/after or are refractory/intolerant to standard-of-care therapy. The primary end point is overall survival in patients without liver metastases.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05425940 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is cancer of the colon or rectum that has spread to other parts of the body, most often to the liver, lungs and abdomen. People with mCRC that has worsened after initial treatment have limited options. Zanzalintinib is a novel oral investigational drug that can slow or stop cancer growth. It works by blocking certain proteins that play important roles in the development, growth and spread of cancer. Zanzalintinib may also help improve the effectiveness of another class of cancer drugs called immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), which work by activating the patient's immune system to fight cancer. Here, we describe the design of STELLAR-303, an ongoing study that is comparing the effects of combining zanzalintinib and an ICI drug called atezolizumab with an approved treatment for mCRC called regorafenib. About 900 participants with mCRC will be enrolled in the study worldwide. To be included in the study, participants must have mCRC that worsened after previous therapies and must not have a high level of microsatellite instability, which is a specific feature of some mCRCs. Participants will be randomly given one of the two treatments. The main goal of the study is to evaluate zanzalintinib plus atezolizumab compared with regorafenib by measuring the length of time participants are alive after starting treatment, specifically in patients with mCRC that has not spread to the liver. Additionally, the study will look at the side effects with each treatment. The study is currently seeking participants.

Anal Carcinoma, Version 2.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This discussion summarizes the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines for managing squamous cell anal carcinoma, which represents the most common histologic form of the disease. A multidisciplinary approach including physicians from gastroenterology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, and radiology is necessary. Primary treatment of perianal cancer and anal canal cancer are similar and include chemoradiation in most cases. Follow-up clinical evaluations are recommended for all patients with anal carcinoma because additional curative-intent treatment is possible. Biopsy-proven evidence of locally recurrent or persistent disease after primary treatment may require surgical treatment. Systemic therapy is generally recommended for extrapelvic metastatic disease. Recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Anal Carcinoma include staging classification updates based on the 9th edition of the AJCC Staging System and updates to the systemic therapy recommendations based on new data that better define optimal treatment of patients with metastatic anal carcinoma.

Rectal Cancer, Version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer focuses on management of malignant polyps and resectable nonmetastatic rectal cancer because important updates have been made to these guidelines. These recent updates include redrawing the algorithms for stage II and III disease to reflect new data supporting the increasingly prominent role of total neoadjuvant therapy, expanded recommendations for short-course radiation therapy techniques, and new recommendations for a "watch-and-wait" nonoperative management technique for patients with cancer that shows a complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer, available online at NCCN.org, covers additional topics including risk assessment, pathology and staging, management of metastatic disease, posttreatment surveillance, treatment of recurrent disease, and survivorship.

Immunologic and tumor responses of pegilodecakin with 5-FU/LV and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

Background Treatment options for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are limited and checkpoint blockade inhibitors have been disappointing in this disease. Pegilodecakin has demonstrated single agent anti-tumor activity in immune-sensitive tumors. Phase 1 and preclinical data indicate synergy of pegilodecakin with 5-FU and platins. We assessed the safety and activity of pegilodecakin+FOLFOX in patients with PDAC. Methods IVY (NCT02009449) was an open-label phase 1b trial in the United States. Here we report on all enrolled patients from cohort C. Heavily pretreated patients were treated with pegilodecakin (self-administered subcutaneously daily at 2.5, 5, or 10 µg/kg) + 5-flurouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX), dosed per manufacturers prescribing information, until tumor progression. Eligible patients had measurable disease per immune-related response criteria (irRC), were ≥ 18 years of age, and had ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were evaluated for primary(safety) and secondary (tumor response per irRC) endpoints. Results From 5 August 2014-12 July 2016, 39 patients enrolled in cohort C. All patients were evaluable for safety. In this advanced population, regimen had manageable toxicities with no immune-related adverse events (irAEs) greater than grade 1. The most common grade 3/4/5 TEAEs were thrombocytopenia (21[53.8%] of 39) and anemia (17[43.6%] of 39). In evaluable PDAC patients, the best overall response of pegilodecakin+FOLFOX was 3(14%) with CRs in 2(9%) patients. Conclusions Pegilodecakin+FOLFOX had an acceptable tolerability profile in PDAC, with no substantial irAEs seen, and promising efficacy with the combination yielding a 2-year OS of 24% (95% CI 10-42). These data led to the phase 3 study with pegilodecakin+FOLFOX as second-line therapy of PDAC (SEQUOIA).

Colon Cancer, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Colon Cancer focuses on systemic therapy options for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), because important updates have recently been made to this section. These updates include recommendations for first-line use of checkpoint inhibitors for mCRC, that is deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high, recommendations related to the use of biosimilars, and expanded recommendations for biomarker testing. The systemic therapy recommendations now include targeted therapy options for patients with mCRC that is HER2-amplified, or BRAF V600E mutation-positive. Treatment and management of nonmetastatic or resectable/ablatable metastatic disease are discussed in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer available at NCCN.org. Additional topics covered in the complete version include risk assessment, staging, pathology, posttreatment surveillance, and survivorship.

Meta-analysis examining overall survival in patients with pancreatic cancer treated with second-line 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin-based therapy after failing first-line gemcitabine-containing therapy: effect of performance status and comparison with other regimens.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer has a poor prognosis and few choices of therapy. For patients with adequate performance status, FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel are preferred first-line treatment. 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU)-based therapy (e.g. FOLFIRI, OFF, or FOLFOX) are often used in patients who previously received gemcitabine-based regimens. A systematic review was conducted of the safety and efficacy of FOLFOX for metastatic pancreatic cancer following prior gemcitabine-based therapy. A Bayesian fixed-effect meta-analysis with adjustment of patient performance status (PS) was conducted to evaluate overall survival (OS) and compare outcomes with nanoliposomal irinotecan combination therapy. METHODS: PubMed.gov , FDA.gov , ClinicalTrials.gov , congress abstracts, Cochrane.org library, and EMBASE database searches were conducted to identify randomized controlled trials of advanced/metastatic disease, prior gemcitabine-based therapy, and second-line treatment with 5-FU and oxaliplatin. The database search dates were January 1, 1990-June 30, 2019. Endpoints were OS and severe treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Trial-level PS scores were standardized by converting Karnofsky grade scores to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Grade, and overall study-weighted PS was calculated based on weighted average of all patients. RESULTS: Of 282 studies identified, 11 randomized controlled trials (N = 454) were included in the meta-analysis. Baseline weighted PS scores predicted OS in 10 of the 11 studies, and calculated PS scores of 1.0 were associated with a median OS of 6.3 months (95% posterior interval, 5.4-7.4). After adjusting for baseline PS, FOLFOX had a similar treatment effect profile (median OS, range 2.6-6.7 months) as 5-FU/leucovorin plus nanoliposomal irinotecan therapy (median OS, 6.1 months; 95% confidence interval 4.8-8.9). Neutropenia and fatigue were the most commonly reported Grade 3-4 TRAEs associated with FOLFOX. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline PS is a strong prognostic factor when interpreting the efficacy of 5-FU and oxaliplatin-based therapy of pancreatic cancer after progression on first-line gemcitabine-based regimens. When baseline PS is considered, FOLFOX has a similar treatment effect as 5-FU and nanoliposomal irinotecan therapy and a comparable safety profile. These findings suggest that 5-FU and oxaliplatin-based therapies remain an acceptable and alternative second-line treatment option for patients with pancreatic cancer and adequate PS (e.g. ECOG 0-1) following gemcitabine treatment.

The molecular evolution of acquired resistance to targeted EGFR blockade in colorectal cancers.

Colorectal tumours that are wild type for KRAS are often sensitive to EGFR blockade, but almost always develop resistance within several months of initiating therapy. The mechanisms underlying this acquired resistance to anti-EGFR antibodies are largely unknown. This situation is in marked contrast to that of small-molecule targeted agents, such as inhibitors of ABL, EGFR, BRAF and MEK, in which mutations in the genes encoding the protein targets render the tumours resistant to the effects of the drugs. The simplest hypothesis to account for the development of resistance to EGFR blockade is that rare cells with KRAS mutations pre-exist at low levels in tumours with ostensibly wild-type KRAS genes. Although this hypothesis would seem readily testable, there is no evidence in pre-clinical models to support it, nor is there data from patients. To test this hypothesis, we determined whether mutant KRAS DNA could be detected in the circulation of 28 patients receiving monotherapy with panitumumab, a therapeutic anti-EGFR antibody. We found that 9 out of 24 (38%) patients whose tumours were initially KRAS wild type developed detectable mutations in KRAS in their sera, three of which developed multiple different KRAS mutations. The appearance of these mutations was very consistent, generally occurring between 5 and 6 months following treatment. Mathematical modelling indicated that the mutations were present in expanded subclones before the initiation of panitumumab treatment. These results suggest that the emergence of KRAS mutations is a mediator of acquired resistance to EGFR blockade and that these mutations can be detected in a non-invasive manner. They explain why solid tumours develop resistance to targeted therapies in a highly reproducible fashion.

A Phase II, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Simtuzumab in Combination with FOLFIRI for the Second-Line Treatment of Metastatic KRAS Mutant Colorectal Adenocarcinoma.

LESSONS LEARNED: The safety profile in the patient groups who received FOLFIRI and simtuzumab did not differ from that in the FOLFIRI and placebo group.The addition of simtuzumab to chemotherapy with FOLFIRI does not improve clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic KRAS mutant colorectal carcinoma. BACKGROUND: Simtuzumab, a humanized IgG4 monoclonal antibody to lysyl oxidase-like 2 (LOXL2), blocks desmoplastic reaction in colorectal carcinoma (CRC) cells in vitro. METHODS: Patients with metastatic Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) mutant CRC were randomized to receive second-line 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) with either 200 or 700 mg simtuzumab or placebo every 2 weeks in cycles of 28 days. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 249 patients were randomized and treated with FOLFIRI/simtuzumab 700 mg (n = 84), FOLFIRI/simtuzumab 200 mg (n = 85), and FOLFIRI/placebo (n = 80). After a median follow-up of 5.1, 3.8, and 5.5 months, respectively, median PFS for each of the respective treatment groups was 5.5 months (adjusted HR [95% CI], p value versus placebo; 1.32 [0.92, 1.89]; p = .10), 5.4 months (1.45 [1.01, 2.06]; p = .04), and 5.8 months. Median OS was 11.4 months (1.23 [0.80, 1.91]; p = .25), 10.5 months (1.50 [0.98, 2.30]; p = .06), and 16.3 months, respectively. ORR was 11.9%, 5.9%, and 10%, respectively. Simtuzumab was tolerable in metastatic KRAS mutant CRC patients. CONCLUSION: The addition of simtuzumab to FOLFIRI did not improve clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic KRAS mutant CRC. The Oncologist 2017;22:243-e8.

A Phase II Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Simtuzumab or Placebo in Combination with Gemcitabine for the First-Line Treatment of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

LESSONS LEARNED: The safety profile in the gemcitabine/simtuzumab group was similar to that in the gemcitabine/placebo group.The addition of simtuzumab to gemcitabine does not improve clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma ABSTRACT: Background.The humanized IgG4 monoclonal antibody simtuzumab inhibits the extracellular matrix-remodeling enzyme lysyl oxidase-like 2 maintaining pathological stroma in tumors. METHODS: Adult patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPaCa) were randomly assigned to receive intravenous gemcitabine, 1,000 mg/m2, in combination with 200 or 700 mg simtuzumab or placebo. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. RESULTS: Of 240 patients, 80 were randomly assigned to gemcitabine/simtuzumab 700 mg, 79 to gemcitabine/simtuzumab 200 mg, and 81 to gemcitabine/placebo. After a median follow-up of 3.0, 1.9, and 3.4 months for gemcitabine/simtuzumab 700 mg, gemcitabine/simtuzumab 200 mg, and gemcitabine/placebo, respectively, the median PFS was 3.7 months (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI], p value vs placebo: 1.09 [0.74-1.61]; p = .73), 3.5 months (1.13 [0.76-1.66], p = .61]), and 3.7 months, respectively. Median OS was 7.6 months (0.83 [0.57-1.22]; p = .28), 5.9 months (1.07 [0.73-1.55]; p = .69), and 5.7 months, respectively. ORRs were 13.9%, 14.5%, and 23.5%, respectively. Simtuzumab was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The addition of simtuzumab to gemcitabine did not improve clinical outcomes in patients with mPaCa. The Oncologist 2017;22:241-e7.

Final analysis of the randomised PEAK trial: overall survival and tumour responses during first-line treatment with mFOLFOX6 plus either panitumumab or bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To report planned final overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) analyses from the phase II PEAK trial (NCT00819780). METHODS: Patients with previously untreated, KRAS exon 2 wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were randomised to mFOLFOX6 plus panitumumab or bevacizumab. The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints included OS, objective response rate, duration of response (DoR), time to response, resection and safety. Treatment effect by tumour RAS status was a prespecified objective. Exploratory analyses included early tumour shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DpR). RESULTS: One hundred seventy patients had RAS WT and 156 had RAS WT/BRAF WT mCRC. Median PFS was longer for panitumumab versus bevacizumab in the RAS WT (12.8 vs 10.1 months; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.68 [95% confidence intervals (CI) = 0.48-0.96]; p = 0.029) and RAS WT/BRAF WT (13.1 vs 10.1 months; HR = 0.61 [95% CI = 0.42-0.88]; p = 0.0075) populations. Median OS (68% OS events) for panitumumab versus bevacizumab was 36.9 versus 28.9 months (HR = 0.76 [95% CI = 0.53-1.11]; p = 0.15) and 41.3 versus 28.9 months (HR = 0.70 [95% CI = 0.48-1.04]; p = 0.08), in the RAS WT and RAS WT/BRAF WT populations, respectively. Median DoR (11.4 vs 9.0 months; HR = 0.59 [95% CI = 0.39-0.88]; p = 0.011) and DpR (65.0 vs 46.3%; p = 0.0018) were improved in the panitumumab group. More panitumumab patients experienced ≥30% ETS at week 8 (64 vs 45%; p = 0.052); ETS was associated with improved PFS/OS. No new safety signals occurred. CONCLUSIONS: First-line panitumumab + mFOLFOX6 increases PFS versus bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 in patients with RAS WT mCRC.

A shared neoantigen vaccine combined with immune checkpoint blockade for advanced metastatic solid tumors: phase 1 trial interim results.

Therapeutic vaccines that elicit cytotoxic T cell responses targeting tumor-specific neoantigens hold promise for providing long-term clinical benefit to patients with cancer. Here we evaluated safety and tolerability of a therapeutic vaccine encoding 20 shared neoantigens derived from selected common oncogenic driver mutations as primary endpoints in an ongoing phase 1/2 study in patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors. Secondary endpoints included immunogenicity, overall response rate, progression-free survival and overall survival. Eligible patients were selected if their tumors expressed one of the human leukocyte antigen-matched tumor mutations included in the vaccine, with the majority of patients (18/19) harboring a mutation in KRAS. The vaccine regimen, consisting of a chimp adenovirus (ChAd68) and self-amplifying mRNA (samRNA) in combination with the immune checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab and nivolumab, was shown to be well tolerated, with observed treatment-related adverse events consistent with acute inflammation expected with viral vector-based vaccines and immune checkpoint blockade, the majority grade 1/2. Two patients experienced grade 3/4 serious treatment-related adverse events that were also dose-limiting toxicities. The overall response rate was 0%, and median progression-free survival and overall survival were 1.9 months and 7.9 months, respectively. T cell responses were biased toward human leukocyte antigen-matched TP53 neoantigens encoded in the vaccine relative to KRAS neoantigens expressed by the patients' tumors, indicating a previously unknown hierarchy of neoantigen immunodominance that may impact the therapeutic efficacy of multiepitope shared neoantigen vaccines. These data led to the development of an optimized vaccine exclusively targeting KRAS-derived neoantigens that is being evaluated in a subset of patients in phase 2 of the clinical study. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03953235 .

Bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer (AVANT): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab improves the efficacy of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. Our aim was to assess the use of bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon carcinoma. METHODS: Patients from 330 centres in 34 countries were enrolled into this phase 3, open-label randomised trial. Patients with curatively resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon carcinoma were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2), leucovorin 200 mg/m(2), and fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus plus 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion on day 1; leucovorin 200 mg/m(2) plus fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus plus 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion on day 2) every 2 weeks for 12 cycles; bevacizumab 5 mg/kg plus FOLFOX4 (every 2 weeks for 12 cycles) followed by bevacizumab monotherapy 7·5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (eight cycles over 24 weeks); or bevacizumab 7·5 mg/kg plus XELOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 2 weeks plus oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-15) every 3 weeks for eight cycles followed by bevacizumab monotherapy 7·5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (eight cycles over 24 weeks). Block randomisation was done with a central interactive computerised system, stratified by geographic region and disease stage. Surgery with curative intent occurred 4-8 weeks before randomisation. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed for all randomised patients with stage III disease. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00112918. FINDINGS: Of the total intention-to-treat population (n=3451), 2867 patients had stage III disease, of whom 955 were randomly assigned to receive FOLFOX4, 960 to receive bevacizumab-FOLFOX4, and 952 to receive bevacizumab-XELOX. After a median follow-up of 48 months (range 0-66 months), 237 patients (25%) in the FOLFOX4 group, 280 (29%) in the bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 group, and 253 (27%) in the bevacizumab-XELOX group had relapsed, developed a new colon cancer, or died. The disease-free survival hazard ratio for bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 was 1·17 (95% CI 0·98-1·39; p=0·07), and for bevacizumab-XELOX versus FOLFOX4 was 1·07 (0·90-1·28; p=0·44). After a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the overall survival hazard ratio for bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 was 1·27 (1·03-1·57; p=0·02), and for bevacizumab-XELOX versus FOLFOX4 was 1·15 (0·93-1·42; p=0·21). The 573 patients with high-risk stage II cancer were included in the safety analysis. The most common grade 3-5 adverse events were neutropenia (FOLFOX4: 477 [42%] of 1126 patients, bevacizumab-FOLFOX4: 416 [36%] of 1145 patients, and bevacizumab-XELOX: 74 [7%] of 1135 patients), diarrhoea (110 [10%], 135 [12%], and 181 [16%], respectively), and hypertension (12 [1%], 122 [11%], and 116 [10%], respectively). Serious adverse events were more common in the bevacizumab groups (bevacizumab-FOLFOX4: 297 [26%]; bevacizumab-XELOX: 284 [25%]) than in the FOLFOX4 group (226 [20%]). Treatment-related deaths were reported in one patient receiving FOLFOX4, two receiving bevacizumab-FOLFOX4, and five receiving bevacizumab-XELOX. INTERPRETATION: Bevacizumab does not prolong disease-free survival when added to adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage III colon cancer. Overall survival data suggest a potential detrimental effect with bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy in these patients. On the basis of these and other data, we do not recommend the use of bevacizumab in the adjuvant treatment of patients with curatively resected stage III colon cancer. FUNDING: Genentech, Roche, and Chugai.

Next-Generation Approaches to Immuno-Oncology in GI Cancers.

Immunotherapy has only had a modest impact on the treatment of advanced GI malignancies. Microsatellite-stable colorectal cancer and pancreatic adenocarcinoma, the most common GI tumors, have not benefited from treatment with standard immune checkpoint inhibitors. With this huge unmet need, multiple approaches are being tried to overcome barriers to better anticancer outcomes. This article reviews a number of novel approaches to immunotherapy for these tumors. These include the use of novel checkpoint inhibitors such as a modified anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 antibody and antibodies to lymphocyte-activation gene 3, T cell immunoreceptor with immunoglobulin and ITIM domains, T-cell immunoglobulin-3, CD47, and combinations with signal transduction inhibitors. We will discuss other trials that aim to elicit an antitumor T-cell response using cancer vaccines and oncolytic viruses. Finally, we review attempts to replicate in GI cancers the frequent and durable responses seen in hematologic malignancies with immune cell therapies.

Fecal and Tissue Microbiota Are Associated with Tumor T-Cell Infiltration and Mesenteric Lymph Node Involvement in Colorectal Cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is associated with alterations of the fecal and tissue-associated microbiome. Preclinical models support a pathogenic role of the microbiome in CRC, including in promoting metastasis and modulating antitumor immune responses. To investigate whether the microbiome is associated with lymph node metastasis and T cell infiltration in human CRC, we performed 16S rRNA gene sequencing of feces, tumor core, tumor surface, and healthy adjacent tissue collected from 34 CRC patients undergoing surgery (28 fecal samples and 39 tissue samples). Tissue microbiome profiles-including increased Fusobacterium-were significantly associated with mesenteric lymph node (MLN) involvement. Fecal microbes were also associated with MLN involvement and accurately classified CRC patients into those with or without MLN involvement. Tumor T cell infiltration was assessed by immunohistochemical staining of CD3 and CD8 in tumor tissue sections. Tumor core microbiota, including members of the Blautia and Faecalibacterium genera, were significantly associated with tumor T cell infiltration. Abundance of specific fecal microbes including a member of the Roseburia genus predicted high vs. low total and cytotoxic T cell infiltration in random forests classifiers. These findings support a link between the microbiome and antitumor immune responses that may influence prognosis of locally advanced CRC.

Preclinical and Clinical Trial Results Using Talazoparib and Low-Dose Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: On the basis of preclinical data, we hypothesized that low doses of chemotherapy (10% of therapeutic doses) with full dose of a PARP inhibitor could have improved efficacy and tolerability. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase I dose-escalation study, patients with BRCA-normal advanced malignancies were assigned to either talazoparib/temozolomide or talazoparib/irinotecan. Talazoparib was dose-escalated from 500 mcg to 1 mg daily before dose escalation of temozolomide/irinotecan. The starting dose of temozolomide was 25 mg/m2/day orally on days 1 to 5 and irinotecan was 25 mg/m2/day intravenously on days 1 and 15. The primary objectives of this trial were safety and tolerability, dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), and maximum tolerated dose (MTD). RESULTS: Of 40 patients enrolled, 18 (mean: 7 prior therapies) were enrolled in talazoparib + temozolomide and 22 in talazoparib + irinotecan. DLTs were hematologic in both arms, but all hematologic adverse events resolved with either treatment interruption and/or dose reductions of talazoparib. The MTDs were talazoparib 1 mg + temozolomide 37.5 mg/m2 and talazoparib 1 mg + irinotecan 37.5 mg/m2. There were four partial responses in the talazoparib + temozolomide arm and five in the talazoparib + irinotecan arm for a response rate of 23% (9/40). The pharmacokinetic profiles of talazoparib + temozolomide/irinotecan were similar to that of talazoparib monotherapy. Responses were seen independent of homologous recombination (HR) status and HR deficiency score. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that talazoparib with low-dose temozolomide or irinotecan is reasonably well tolerated and demonstrates clinical activity in a wide range of cancers. Randomized trials of talazoparib with or without low-dose chemotherapy are ongoing in small cell lung cancer and ovarian cancer.

Evaluation of Intratumoral Response Heterogeneity in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer and Its Impact on Patient Overall Survival: Findings from 10,551 Patients in the ARCAD Database.

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a heterogeneous disease that can evoke discordant responses to therapy among different lesions in individual patients. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria do not take into consideration response heterogeneity. We explored and developed lesion-based measurement response criteria to evaluate their prognostic effect on overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients enrolled in 17 first-line clinical trials, who had mCRC with ≥ 2 lesions at baseline, and a restaging scan by 12 weeks were included. For each patient, lesions were categorized as a progressing lesion (PL: > 20% increase in the longest diameter (LD)), responding lesion (RL: > 30% decrease in LD), or stable lesion (SL: neither PL nor RL) based on the 12-week scan. Lesion-based response criteria were defined for each patient as follows: PL only, SL only, RL only, and varied responses (mixture of RL, SL, and PL). Lesion-based response criteria and OS were correlated using stratified multivariable Cox models. The concordance between OS and classifications was measured using the C statistic. RESULTS: Among 10,551 patients with mCRC from 17 first-line studies, varied responses were noted in 51.6% of patients, among whom, 3.3% had RL/PL at 12 weeks. Among patients with RL/SL, 52% had stable disease (SD) by RECIST 1.1, and they had a longer OS (median OS (mOS) = 19.9 months) than those with SL only (mOS = 16.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 0.81 (0.76, 0.85), p < 0.001), although a shorter OS than those with RL only (mOS = 25.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 1.42 (1.32, 1.53), p < 0.001). Among patients with SL/PL, 74% had SD by RECIST 1.1, and they had a longer OS (mOS = 9.0 months) than those with PL only (mOS = 8.0 months, HR (95% CI) = 0.75 (0.57, 0.98), p = 0.040), yet a shorter OS than those with SL only (mOS = 16.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 1.98 (1.80, 2.18), p < 0.001). These associations were consistent across treatment regimen subgroups. The lesion-based response criteria showed slightly higher concordance than RECIST 1.1, although it was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Varied responses at first restaging are common among patients receiving first-line therapy for mCRC. Our lesion-based measurement criteria allowed for better mortality discrimination, which could potentially be informative for treatment decision-making and influence patient outcomes.

EUS or percutaneously guided intratumoral TNFerade biologic with 5-fluorouracil and radiotherapy for first-line treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase I/II study.

BACKGROUND: TNFeradeBiologic (AdGVEGR.TNF.11D) is a replication-deficient adenoviral vector that expresses tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) under the control of the Egr-1 promoter, which is inducible by chemotherapy and radiation. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to determine the maximal tolerated dose of TNFeradeBiologic with standard chemoradiotherapy and preliminary activity and safety of the combination in the treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). DESIGN: TNFeradeBiologic was injected into locally advanced pancreatic carcinomas by using EUS or percutaneous administration once a week for 5 weeks together with 50.4 Gy radiation and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) 200 mg/m(2) daily over 5.5 weeks. Dose levels from 4 × 10(9) to 1 × 10(12) particle units (PU) were studied. SETTING: Multicentered, academic institutions. PATIENTS: Fifty patients with LAPC were treated. INTERVENTIONS: Doses of TNFerade Biologic were administered to patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Toleration of TNFerade Biologic was measured through toxicity and tumor response, by using the criteria of the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and the World Health Organization, and was reviewed by a central radiology facility. Overall survival and progression-free survival were also measured. RESULTS: Dose-limiting toxicities of pancreatitis and cholangitis were observed in 3 patients at the 1 × 10(12) PU dose, making 4 × 10(11) PU the maximum tolerated dose. One complete response, 3 partial responses, and 12 patients with stable disease were noted. Seven patients eventually went to surgery, 6 had clear margins, and 3 survived >24 months. LIMITATIONS: This is a Phase 1/2 non-randomized study. CONCLUSIONS: Intratumoral delivery of TNFerade Biologic by EUS with fine-needle viral injection or percutaneously, combined with chemoradiation, shows promise in the treatment of LAPC. There appeared to be better clinical outcome at the maximal tolerated dose than at lower doses. The dose of 4 ×10(11) PU TNFerade Biologic was generally well tolerated, with encouraging indications of activity, and will be tested in the randomized phase of this study. Delivery of TNFerade Biologic did not interfere with subsequent surgical resection.

Familial Duodenal Somatostatinomatosis Not Associated With a Known Genetic Syndrome.

ABSTRACT: We report a father and his daughter who both had multiple somatostatinomas in the duodenal bulb without a known syndrome. The father, at age 68 years, was incidentally found to harbor 4 approximately 1.5-cm well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors in the duodenal bulb. His preoperative somatostatin level was elevated. He underwent partial duodenectomy and regional lymph node dissection; one lymph node was positive for metastasis. One year postoperatively, a recurrence was found in the surgical bed; he was treated with octreotide for 2 years, which stabilized the recurrent tumor. Ten years postoperatively, the mucosa of his remaining duodenum was normal. His daughter, at age 53 years, was found to harbor multiple small neuroendocrine tumors in the duodenal bulb. Immunostaining of available specimens showed that the neuroendocrine tumors from the father and daughter both were strongly positive for somatostatin. Micronodules of somatostatin-expressing neuroendocrine cells were found in the parts of the specimens uninvolved with the tumors. Both patients exhibited no evidence of known syndromes associated with somatostatinoma. The daughter did not harbor mutations in 93 genes commonly found in genetic tumor syndromes. The 2 cases thus suggest a novel, autosomal dominant, genetic syndrome of familial duodenal somatostatinomatosis.